slaveluci
Posts: 4294
Joined: 3/2/2007 From: Little Rock, AR Status: offline
|
Yesterday on "The Slave Register," there was a question about "considerate" versus "cruel" dominants. Raven Kaldera, a well-known author in BDSM circles, wrote a response that included the following quotes: "I would like to believe that I am very good to Joshua. That's mostly because I know that if you want a complex and expensive tool to run at top form, you have to take good care of it and maintain it well. I have no interest in breaking him with my demands; I need him functioning well." "There are different sorts of cruelty. The kind that really makes me uncomfortable is the sort that seems completely concerned with petty cruelty - Joshua calls it "dicking the sub around". Putting them in no-win predicaments, setting them up for failure and ridiculing them, making them struggle to no avail, making them work hard at something only to have their efforts undone, etc. This sort of thing is done with only the entertainment of the dominant as its purpose, but it seems that all too often that isn't made clear - because the dominant does not want to admit to it, and/or it's more satisfying when the submissive is taking it seriously and thinks that their efforts may actually make a difference. This sort of thing is especially damaging to service-oriented submissives, and worst of all for service subs who are "positional" types and see good service as bound up with their identities. Control-oriented subs have a much better time getting off on this sort of thing. It would be much more ethical if it was just laid out that way - "You're entertainment, I like seeing you suffer, just do your best and see suffering prettily as service to me." But even so it would be hard for them, and they might end up with self-esteem problems if they received no aid from the dominant in learning to reframe and cope with it. Another similar sort of dishonest petty cruelty is when a dominant uses a punishment context largely for the purpose of combining sadism with the emotional satisfaction of righteous indignation, instead of any real thought as to whether it's the best thing for actually changing behavior. Again, it would be better if it was up front and honest, but that would probably take away the fun for the dominant in question. We've stated before that you can tell a lot about someone by giving them a person that they could do anything with, and seeing what it is that they do. So many dominant types seem to want to use a submissive as someone that they can be a jerk to without having to admit that's what they're doing. I really, really despise pettiness. If I'm going to be cruel, I'm going to be cleanly and straight-out cruel in a Big Way. No dicking around, no pretend justification. Since it is not always ethically possible to indulge this, it is a great gift when the circumstances are right and it can happen. Worth waiting for. Some subs are put off by sensing cruelty in a dominant. Some aren't. Joshua is turned on, and drawn near, by knowing I have a cruel and sadistic streak. On the other hand, he doesn't like being dicked around, so knowing that I didn't fritter out my sadism in that way made him feel paradoxically safe with me. He knows that when I'm cruel to him, it isn't about him or his performance or worth as my boy. It's all about me, cleanly and clearly so, and he can handle that better emotionally, being one of those positional uber-service-oriented types." -Raven Kaldera I just thought this was perfectly appropriate to address your situation. Wise words indeed.................luci ~A few short parts were edited out for brevity and clarity and the red emphasis is mine~
< Message edited by slaveluci -- 3/16/2008 5:12:39 PM >
_____________________________
To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list. ~John Aikin
|